Conference 7.286::digital

    mike,
    
    we work for DEC. period.

re .0:

        That reminds me of a short item I saw in the Boston Globe
        business section this week which referred to "Lotus Equipment
        Corporation."

        Bob

On a recent report on South Africa, CNN, used some awkward name to refer to
Digital.  I forget the exact quote but it was something like "Digital computer
corporation".


                                                        -Paul
 

Heck, I was once announced at a customer presentation as the guy from

"Digital Electronics Corporation"...

*sigh*

    My HP friends think I work for Damn Expensive Computers!  Of course
    since they work for High Priced...)
    
    --- Gavin

    
    
      RE: -.1 and IBM
    
      I've Been Mislead.
    
    			-an oldie but a goodie-

    re -.1
    
    >>  RE: -.1 and IBM
    
    >>  I've Been Mislead.
    
    >>			-an oldie but a goodie-
    
    which reminds me of a mug, with Humphrey Bogart, 
    
    and on the opposite side:   "I WAS MISINFORMED"

    Did you catch the message on your paycheck? 
    "We ask all emplyees to help in all their internal and external
    communications -- out name is Digital, not DEC.
    
    Hmm, someone better tell the NYSE.

Re: .8

Why?  Do you think the employees of US Steel call their company "X"?  The
stock symbol isn't required to be the same as what the company is called
in normal business communication.

I have no problem with calling the company "Digital", and have been doing
so for a long time now.  I do forsee a big problem given the recent trend
towards naming all of our products with a DEC prefix.

				Steve

    In over 5 years of customer visits as part of Sales Support I NEVER
    signed a customer's visitor log as being from DEC.  Even though it took
    more time to do I always signed Digital Equipment Corporation, or, when
    there wasn't enough room, Digital.  It seemed to be almost "lazy" to
    abbreviate the name of your own company.  When you consider that you
    are leaving a permanent record of your visit to that company WITH that
    company it only makes sense that they know EXACTLY what company visited
    them!
    
    It may not be rocket science but taking the time to print the entire
    name also gave me time to read the names and companies of other
    visitors to that account, sometimes very revealing.

    ...ahead of the wave.
    
    I seldom use DEC, and consider myself a Digit, not a DECcie.  Now
    that's leaving it open...
    

If 'DEC' is for internal use, why do we have so many products named
DEC<mumble>.

I nearly fell over laughing when I saw a cab of new disks come in with
the word 'DECarray' on it. Geesh...!

Lee

    RE: .12  by CSOADM::ROTH 
    
>I nearly fell over laughing when I saw a cab of new disks come in with
>the word 'DECarray' on it. Geesh...!
    
    Good thing we're not Digital Information Systems.
    

    Re: .13-
    
    >    Good thing we're not Digital Information Systems.
    
    	Yeah, then we could sell (Open)DISconnect network components, too..
    
    Phil

    
    Just be glad that your not in Systems Technical Development or
         
    			STD's as they are called.
    
    ps
           STD does have another conitation.

    Foreach xxx
    	DECxxx is easier to trademark than xxx
    	and
    	DEC is one syllable, but Digital would be three added to xxx.

    
    	Does that mean that my internet address of
    	
    	[email protected]  will change to
    	[email protected]?
    
    	Come to think of it, ENET invokes memories of the ENGINEERING
    	NET. 
    
    	so... maybe it should be    [email protected]
    
    	to be PC!
    	TGIF
    	/john

RE:             <<< Note 2542.17 by ANARKY::BREWER "nevermind...." >>>
    
�    	so... maybe it should be    [email protected]
    
    I heard it was to be:
    
    brewer@anarky.easynet.massgoodoleboysmarchingbandandchowdersociety.com
    
    Laurie.

    DEC.  Or you can call me
    Digital.  Or you can call me
    Digital Equip Corp.  Or you can call me
    Digital Computer Corporation.
    
    Just don't call me LATE for dinner!

   Took my kids to see Jurasic Park.  Right before the film started,
   there was a clip  plugging the digital sound system (available in
   selected theaters).  The film had a nice graphic with "digital" in
   a blue, lower case, brush stroke font.  My 11-year old looked at me
   and said, "Dad, that's your company!"
   
   Somehow, I don't think that was the general thought in the theater. 
   So, now I'm thinking to myself, "Great, not only will people think I
   work for a watch company, but now we do sound systems for movies."

    re: .20  Worse ... they will associate "digital" with dinosaurs ...
    ;^}
    
    Steve

re .20

Right.  "digital" is a real word and consequently it's an uphill
struggle trying to get it to be associated with us.  Sort of
like General Motors trying to get people to think of them as "general".

DEC, on the other hand, refers to one and only one entity (as far
as I know :-)

    
    What's worse than that to me is the promotional material which
    indicates that Jurassic Park was done on Silicon Graphics gear.  I have
    seen t-shirts and posters so far.  I didn't see any reference in the
    credits, but back then I wasn't looking.
    

It's so simple: We work for Digital Equipment Corporation.  Our management has
decided that being known as "Digital, the company whose employees are dedicated
to customer success through innovation" will help us develop some "brand 
identity," whatever that is.

I think we need to get behind it, stop hugging the trees of the old "DEC" we
used to know and love.  Wake up! We're not living in the seventies anymore.  In
fact, it's not even the eighties anymore, when we were really riding high.  
Why, come to think of it, the nineties have gotten a jump on us.

We can't leave anything to chance, not even the confusion the expensive 
worldwide research showed exists in customers' and potential customers' minds 
about who DEC and Digital are.  It's better if we have only one name.  Maybe
they flipped a coin and decided "Digital" was it, but "Digital" it is.

It's time for everyone to decide that there's nothing you can do about the 
name.  It never really was "DEC."  Stop fighting it!

I remember being hired in and making the transition from software developer/
engineer to sales support person.  I was in Nashua for Sales Support training.
They had us doing sales presentations to imagined customers.  One of the other 
trainees said something in his presentation about all the wonderful things 
"'DEC' can do for you, Mr. Customer." 

The instructor pointed out, appropriately, "We're not 'DEC.' If you want 
to shorten the name, use 'Digital' not 'DEC'." 

I learned it then and have always remembered.  "We're 'Digital' not 'DEC'."

Stop wasting your energy fighting a stupid religious war.  Worry about what
you do something about, like making a profit for Digital.

Bruce

    Silicon Graphics was the hardware/software of choice used by Industrial
    Light & Magic for JP.  I've seen JPEG's on the network displaying some
    of their preliminary work of the dinosaurs with the SG logo.
    
    Mike

Silicon Graphics has been the hardware of choice for professional computer
animation for quite a while, or at least one of the leaders, though the 
Amiga is making some inroads, especially at the low-end.

   Gary

    
    and does anyone think that the folks at IL&M might drop SG like
    the proverbial hot potato, after trying their software on an AXP
    running OSF/1 and Open3D (with GL).  Just curious.
    

	re .24:

>It's time for everyone to decide that there's nothing you can do about the 
>name.  It never really was "DEC."  Stop fighting it!

	Yes SIR!

	That takes care of the 98,000 - sorry, 95,000 - er, that is 90,000
	employees.

	All you have to do now is take the carefully reasoned argument
	you laid out in .24 and  persuade the press, the analysts, our
	customers and the rest of the world to accept it.

	Until then, what has been accomplished is to get everyone in
	Digital using one name, while 99% of the outside world uses
	another. This is poor communication.

	By the way, I too have punctiliously said and written "Digital"
	every since the corporate decision was taken.

	Discipline is great and necessary. Soldiers, however, do have to
	question orders if they are told to march off a cliff, or shoot
	civilians.

	/Tom

    Also, .24, you miss the point badly. The same, point, I assume as has
    been missed by the people who allotted $200million to the "branding
    campaign".
    
    To me, and I don't believe I'm mistaken, branding means the
    identification of a name with a product. For instance, Kleenex =
    tissue, Hoover = vacuum cleaner, IBM = computers, Coke = a cola drink,
    and so on.
    
    Now, with respect to the word "digital" as a brand name. First problem:
    We have Digital Research, and Western Digital, to name but two
    well-known Corporations with the word Digital in their names. How do we
    negate that one? Second problem: How do we overcome the connection of
    the word "digital" with watches, CD players, Sound cards in PCs etc.
    etc? Third problem, what *exactly* is the genus of product we're trying
    to be come "branded" to? PCs? Minis? SI? Chips? Services?
    
    The whole bloody idea is a lost cause, and a complete waste of money.
    No amount of banging the drum by people like the noter in .24 will
    change the reality of that. Tom in .28 is absolutely correct, we are,
    to many, many people, DEC, and to swim against so strong a tide in
    times like these is sheer folly. We already have a name that is
    recognised the world over, it's DEC. Why change it? We can capitalise
    on it for far less money.
    
    Religious war? Get a life.
    
    Laurie.

    
>    To me, and I don't believe I'm mistaken, branding means the
>    identification of a name with a product. For instance, Kleenex =
>    tissue, Hoover = vacuum cleaner, IBM = computers, Coke = a cola drink,
>    and so on.
 
	and Perier=contamination........

	Be careful of branding, it can do more harm than good, so maybe 
	confusion is the best thing, if you're not excellent!

	Heather

    Back a few replies, someone compared using digital to General Motors
    trying to 'brand' general. More accurrately its like trying to brand
    "Motors". Motor is the name of a broad class of devices, and GM calling
    itself "the motor company" wouldnt get much notice in the face of every
    other Motor company.
    
    Digital as a company name is simply not distiguishable from the
    technology. The survey that found 'digital' to be more recognizable
    than DEC was cleary flawed by peoples confusion in the use of digital
    as in watches rather than digial as in equipment corp.
    
    Radio Corporation of America became so well known simply as RCA that
    they changed their official name to RCA Corporation. 
    
    A brand recognition as DEC could have been created. As digital I doubt
    it can become a well known brand.
    
    Can anyone find an example of brand name that is the same as the
    name of the base technology? 

	Does      IBM-clone   count?

    re: .27
    
    I wouldn't bet on it.  SG is known in the graphics world and has built
    quite a reputation in that arena.
    
    I am involved with a government customer who is in process of building
    what will eventually be a 3-D camera for Virtual Reality.  He wanted
    Digital to chip in a couple Alphas and some consulting time in 
    order to partner in the technology.  Even if we did nothing else,
    we'd make sure that the sale of each camera (and the medical units
    which will be the first applications of such a camera) resulted in a
    sale of (at least one) Alpha AXP box.
    
    But we're not interested.  No one we can find at Digital will touch the 
    darn thing.
    
    One of the other (well known) govt labs has now joined in the project.
    They found out that our customer was using VAX boxes and said "DEC?  No
    one uses DEC stuff for serious graphics anymore!  Try one of our SG
    boxes!  They're real hummers and they're the platform everyone uses for
    serious graphics!"
    
    Meanwhile, it appears there is a backer in the wings.  They have 
    apparently expressed some interest in a Pentium-based platform.
    
    If we're going to compete in the real graphics arena, we have to get
    serious.  And we have to let the industry KNOW we're serious about it.
    So far, most of the feedback I've received hasn't been very good.
    
    -- Russ

    re: .27
    
    The problem would not be the AXP but the speed of the IO subsystem. 
    For this kind of product you need about 80MB/sec or more.  SGI can do
    close to 40MB/sec. with disk striping.  Now, happily, we are very close
    to having the best platform with the newly announced IPI disk subsystems
    coupled with disk striping.  Our group is studying a full product for 
    the animation market - if you have leads, ideas, requirements, send
    them to me at HURON::LINNELL.
    
    Re: .34
    Please contact us (Custom Systems & Platforms aka CSS) - perhaps we can
    help each other.

    A reader of this conference forwarded .34 to me.  I thought I might
    make a couple of comments re .27 etc.  It has nothing to do with
    Digital vs. DEC, but what's Notes without digressions?
    
    As Russ mentioned, no way is the movie industry going to drop Silicon
    Graphics.  Silicon Graphics is not only the technology leader in the 3D
    market, but entertainment is their star application area - their big
    attention grabber.  It's also an application area that plays to their
    technical strengths the best - providing the absolutely best quality 3D
    graphics, especially in terms of picture quality, with the best
    hardware and software support.
    
    Most movie graphics are not rendered in realtime, so I'm not sure how
    what .35 talks about is relevant to this particular application.  But
    if anyone is making a study of the animation market, of which virtual
    reality is a part, I'd like to hear more (offline).
    
    Personally, I'll be content (for the time being) to let SGI have the
    entertainment market if we can start to get a big share of industrial
    markets.  We finally have a competitive 3D system in our partnership
    with Kubota and currently have price/performance leadership in many
    areas - but high-end entertainment isn't one of those areas.
    
    Russ is right that nobody has touched his customer in terms of funding. 
    Those interested (like me) have had no funding to pursue it.  Those who
    would be likely to fund (like External Research) have had survival
    issues to deal with over the past few weeks rather than being able to
    take on anything new.
    
    The good news, VR-wise, is we just had a 1/2 day engineering review of
    virtual reality technology with top engineering management.  In a
    couple of weeks I should know if we're going to have a serious
    investment in VR engineering for FY94.
    
    Any Digital employee interested in learning more about virtual reality
    and Digital's efforts in this area is invited to join the CLT::PRESENCE
    notes conference.  Just send me mail to request membership.

Continuing the digression:

Babylon 5, a science fiction TV project, recently received a go-ahead
from Warner's PTEN network to produce approximately 20 episodes.  One of 
the interesting things about this show is that they do extensive computer 
special effects, using a farm of Amigas (if I may be so bold as to call it 
a farm).  A major motivation for this is the belief that the Amigas are far 
more cost effective than an SGI arrangement, and can satisfy their quality 
requirements.  Production costs are important factor (and help explain why 
Babylon 5 didn't get funding until the reviews came in, while Time Trax, 
another SF show, with lower costs and distributed by the same network, got 
early funding).

The message is that no one, not IBM, not SGI, not even Microsoft, is 
invulnerable.  While it's true that the entertainment industry isn't going 
to drop SGI this year, that doesn't mean there's no opportunity there for 
us, or that we couldn't turn SGI into a has-been five years from now.  We 
have two factors in our favor: speed and 64 bits (at least I think Alpha's 
64 bit architecture works to our advantage).  Whether we should push harder 
in that direction is another question, but it won't be because we can't.

   Gary

.24 -< We're "Digital."  What's the big deal? >-
    
    The big deal, as I see it, is that no matter how much WE use the name
    Digital, until the company starts actively correcting the media when
    they call us by the wrong name, we're not going to get anywhere.

    > the company starts actively correcting the media when they call us
    > by the wrong name...
    
    and we're not going to get anywhere as long as we concentrate on the
    name game instead of solving customer problems with good products...
    
    if we spent more time and effort satisfying the customer than worrying
    about what we're called or what wall street thinks then what we're
    called and what wall street thinks will take care of itself...
    
    focus on what's important...offering customers solutions that solve
    their business problems...

    re:.39
    
    Can there be only one important issue at any one time?
    
    If recognition isn't important, then someone should alert Mr.
    Palmer because it seems we're certainly spending a fair amount of
    money on surveys, communicating the results and on educating em-
    ployees.
    
    Informing the media when they have called us by the wrong name costs
    very little.

    re: .40
    
    >If recognition isn't important...
    
    There are many more companies that are un-recognized that make a profit
    for their shareholders, that solve their customers problems, than their
    are companies that are well known....
    
    don't beleive it look at the stock maeket and see how many are well
    recognized....
    
    so what's really important is in the eye of the beholder....
    

    
    Name recognition is one area where Digital is still sadly lacking.
    
    Digital products ARE everywhere, even if they aren't seen or
    recognized. Sure, it's a pretty logo, but if people still associate it
    with watches we will never be the giant that this company can be.
    
    Put it on Race Cars, put it on TV, give the FieldService people back
    their be-striped and logo'ed DigitalWagons, put it on buses, and even
    blimps at public events, BUT PUT IT OUT WHERE IT CAN BE SEEN.
    
    We don't want to sell to the great unwashed public? So don't. But make
    sure that the public knows who/what we are.
    
    "You may know us as "DEC", you may know us as "Digital", but know us."
    
    .mike.
    

	The noter in .42 is not to be confused with me.. 

				(the Original) mike

	:-)

I *thought* you'd been getting around alot lately, Mike ;-)

    re       <<< Note 2542.43 by AXEL::FOLEY "Rebel without a Clue" >>>

>	The noter in .42 is not to be confused with me.. 
>
>				(the Original) mike
>	:-)

    Heaven forbid, Mikey, you are confused enough on your own, without any
    help... :-)
    
    q
    
    

    But imagine the look on the guard's face when I walked in (about 10pm)
    and said "Hi, I Mike Foley, and I'm here to see Mike Foley."
    
    (and I must still claim the "Original" title... :-)  Hi Mike!)
    
    .mike.

	:-)

    oh NO!  we have 2 Mike Foley's in DEC !!
    
    \nasser

    >    oh NO!  we have 2 Mike Foley's in DEC !!
    
    I think we once had three.
    
    		Alfred

	We still have 3 of us according to ELF.

							mike

Axel> find michael foley
              Name:  MICHAEL FOLEY
               DTN:  234-4642
    DECnet address:  STUDIO::FOLEY
Internal Mail Addr:  NRO5-1/B4
          Org Unit:  TECHNOLOGY - MFG

              Name:  MICHAEL FOLEY
               DTN:  256-5790, 256-2290, Telephone: 315-451-6550, x-290
    DECnet address:  usrcv1::foley
Internal Mail Addr:  SYO1
          Org Unit:  US DIGITAL SERVICES-MCS, Customer (FIELD) Service
          Position:  Customer (FIELD) Service Eng.

              Name:  MIKE FOLEY
               DTN:  381-2176, 381-2176
    DECnet address:  AXEL::FOLEY OR STAR::MFOLEY
Internal Mail Addr:  ZKO3-4/T61
          Org Unit:  COMPUTER SYSTEMS GROUP, OpenVMS Engineering,
Integration
                and Test Group
          Position:  OpenVMS V6.0 Team